W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-prov-wg@w3.org > April 2013

Re: Primer staged ready for review

From: Daniel Garijo <dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es>
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2013 16:19:05 +0200
Message-ID: <CAExK0DcrSDkYMtN7rVrfc1jTgh09KZ1vvkQO155GG4p0xMhcDA@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Miles, Simon" <simon.miles@kcl.ac.uk>
Cc: "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Hi Simon,
I have just reviewed the Primer. It looks very good, congrats to you and
Yolanda!.
I have some minor editorial comments, which you can find at the end of this
message.
Best,
Daniel
*****************
Document reviewd:
https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/primer/NOTE-prov-primer-20130430/Overview.html

The following sentence at the end of section one ends up abruptly:
"There are additional reference documents for PROV that are not covered in
this primer, including the PROV Access and Query aspects of the
specification [PROV-AQ], the constraints on the PROV data model
[PROV-CONSTRAINTS], a formal semantics of the PROV data model [PROV-SEM]."
-->I would add an "and":
There are additional reference documents for PROV that are not covered in
this primer, including the PROV Access and Query aspects of the
specification [PROV-AQ]  *and* the constraints on the PROV data model
[PROV-CONSTRAINTS], a formal semantics of the PROV data model [PROV-SEM].

I got lost in this paragrah, in section 2.9:
"Two individuals may create provenance referring to the same thing from
different perspectives. For example, the author of an article may attribute
that article to themselves using PROV while, independently, a reader might
quote a fact from that article elsewhere and document this in PROV. If the
author later changes the fact, then from the reader's perspective there are
now two versions of the article, and *they had quoted from the version
before the change. From the author's perspective, there is a single
article, attributed to the author. If either of them, or a third party,
were to connect the two PROV records, they would say that the article as
referred to by the reader is a specialization of the same article as
referred to by the author*."
-->By "they" what are you referring to? If the author changes the article
in another version, then we have the original article, the reviewed article
and the article quoting the original one. I don't see how 2 are quoting the
original one. Could you please clarify this part? I also got a bit confused
by the "them" afterwards.

In the summary of the end, we find:
 "Derek took a process-centered perspective and combined it with
object-centered and entity-centered provenance information."
-->What is the difference between object-centered and entity centered
provenance?

"Integrate provenance-related information represented in other
vocabularies. The FOAF vocabulary was used for specifying details about
Derek and his company. The Dublin Core vocabulary was also used."
-->Since you add how foaf was used, i think it would make sense to add that
dc was used for describing the title.

Finally, it would be nice to see a table with the namespaces used before
the examples, similarly to what prov-o does. But they are well described in
the text, so if it's considered redundant I'm ok without it.

Ah, I thought that the "Authors" were going to be edited as "contributors",
but I haven't seen it in this version yet.



2013/3/29 Miles, Simon <simon.miles@kcl.ac.uk>

>  Hello,
>
>  The primer is now staged and ready for review:
>
>
> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/primer/NOTE-prov-primer-20130430/Overview.html
>
>  Please provide reviews by 4 April.
>
>  thanks,
> Simon and Yolanda
>
>       Dr Simon Miles
> Senior Lecturer, Department of Informatics
> Kings College London, WC2R 2LS, UK
> +44 (0)20 7848 1166
>
>      Evolutionary Testing of Autonomous Software Agents:
> http://eprints.dcs.kcl.ac.uk/1370/
>
Received on Monday, 1 April 2013 14:19:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:51:35 UTC